Forum menu
in order to be successful in a libel action, the plaintiffs would have to prove that he was referring specifically to them
So, he might win the case due to weasel words, yet damage the party because of his obvious intent?
I'm not addressing whether he should have just kept his trap shut. It's pretty obvious he should have. Just whether it constituted defamation. Whoever is advising Ware seemed to come to that conclusion pretty quickly, I find that surprising as it seems the effect would be pretty vexatious, whatever the intent.
"Juicy pre-election contracts for the ‘top team’ only…"
I'm not seeing any 'millionaires' there? How much do you think a SPAD should get paid?
I’m not seeing any ‘millionaires’ there?
> sigh <
Look harder.
Just whether it constituted defamation.
I think the intent was very clear, but I have no idea if it would be judged so in the legal system. I’d rather we didn’t have to find out.
By pre election you mean a full year before the election. & at a bang average rate for a spad.
& so much hate for millionaires surely some of the posters on here have a million in assets?
How much do you think a SPAD should get paid?
at a bang average rate for a spad.
The rate wasn’t relevant… only giving time limited contracts to ‘lesser’ staff, while giving these few gold plated long term contracts, and the chance of a payoff if removed post election, was the point.
——————————————————————-
Jeremy Corbyn got me voting Labour with his left wing policies… but his reliance on ‘millionaire marxists’ Andrew Murray and Seamus Milne, made me wary of what that team would do in no10 beyond the stated policies… (I still voted Labour though)… it takes not a moment of contemplation to see how wary anyone not ‘of the Left’ would be voting with us for that team.
——————————————————————-
took their thirty pieces of silver
No further explanation about why you chose these particular words, when talking about a settlement with antisemitism whistleblowers, to try and help Labour move on?
No further explanation about why you chose these particular words, when talking about a settlement with antisemitism whistleblowers, to try and help Labour move on?
I could be wrong and apologise in advance if I am but the settlement and apology are for their names appearing in a leaked report.
No further explanation about why you chose these particular words
Instead of piling on with the McCarthyite witch hunt maybe you could address the point that the people who are endangering the finances of the party and stoking further internal division with their money grubbing legal actions are the very same people from the right who were proven to be actively undermining labour's 2017 election campaign. You might also consider that if that tweet from Formby above is correct then the party have actually got nothing to worry about and are settling these claims not for legal reasons, but for some political reason which is as yet unclear, which is exactly what Corbyn said in his statement.
I have no idea what Starmer is up to, but this is transparently the very opposite of 'unifying the party' and I for one won't continue paying a membership to an organisation which is clearly rotten to the core, and has a leadership which appears to be conducting a completely unnecessary and costly witch hunt against it's predecessors and the members who supported them. FFS Corbyn was happy on his allotment and no one had heard a peep from him. This whole fiasco has been created by people who cannot accept victory. They won't be happy until they've gutted the party of everyone they lost to back in 2015. It's vengeance and bullying and nothing else, and I for one hope these f***** never get anywhere near power.
Instead of piling on with the McCarthyite witch hunt
Er… right…
I for one hope these f***** never get anywhere near power
Well, I still want a Labour government.
Well, I still want a Labour government.
If the likes of McNichol et al who are driving this wholly unnecessary and vengeful witch hunt are back at the top of the party then I'll be honest I don't. They're no better than the people who are in government now. And if Starmer allows them back then the same goes for him. He won the leadership with the votes of leftwingers on the promise of drawing a line under the divisions. His only chance is to deliver on that.
Instead of piling on with the McCarthyite witch hunt
The "I don't get it" foghorn is still blaring away
It seems a bit odd that getting vexed about the new classifieds gets you the banhammer yet post anti-Semitic tropes and that's ok......
I could be wrong and apologise in advance if I am but the settlement and apology are for their names appearing in a leaked report.
Why did you choose to use the words “took their thirty pieces of silver“? Just echoing what you’ve heard elsewhere? Why that phrase?
Why that phrase?
Please stop with the looking for stuff that's not there. This routine of branding anyone on the left as a racist is not only tiresome but it's extremely offensive and upsetting to many of us. He almost certainly used that phrase because the labour staffers were proven to have betrayed the party which employed them and now are compounding that betrayal by suing them for a quick buck. Using the phrase '30 pieces of silver' in relaion to acs of betrayal is a common association and doesn't mean you're an anti-semite which is what you're clearly implying.
Daz... Jennie Formby was explicitly told by the party’s lawyers not to publish that hatchet job report as it would result in a load of legal cases.
So she leaked it to the press, which amounts to the same thing, and guess what? It’s resulted in a load of legal cases
So to describe that as a witch hunt and suggest that she’s somehow the victim in all this is absolutely absurd.
She was clearly told not to do something, and exactly what would happen if she did, but she went ahead and did it anyway, with the predicted results.
Binners there are two sides to every story. If Formby says the report was written in accordance with the law then it could/should be tested in court. We all know it won’t be though because it suits the right wing political agenda to settle. And it in no way changes the fact that the people who betrayed the party before are now doing more damage in an effort to enrich themselves and create more division. It’s indefensible. This is Starmers big test. He can stay true to his leadership campaign or he can cave in to the right and probably split the party for good.
This routine of branding anyone on the left as a racist is not only tiresome but it’s extremely offensive and upsetting to many of us. Using the phrase ’30 pieces of silver’ in relaion to acs of betrayal is a common association and doesn’t mean you’re an anti-semite which is what you’re clearly implying.
Really Dazh? You’re defending that? It’s irrelevant to me if the poster is “on the Left” like myself or not… we all need to be far more careful about using/spreading these tropes when talking about antisemitism… there is no excuse. If it was meant or passed on innocently, then the poster can say so. If he genuinely doesn’t see why it is problematic, we can discuss it. If you honestly can’t see why it’s problematic, I’m surprised.
Hmmmmmm.... given that it’s the difference between a couple of hundred grand out-of-court settlement or years in the courts and millions of pounds in legal fees that could potentially bankrupt the whole party, who’s legal judgement should we listen to here?
The qualified and highly respected senior QC and former Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer?
Or the former shop steward who caused this mess by just blatantly ignored the advice of her own Parties senior lawyers, Jennie Formby?
I have to say, it’s a tough call
When you question this anti-Corbyn sentiment, all you get is regurgitated tabloid bile. I still don't get it really. I notice the loudest people are often the shortest in facts.
The right-wing of Labour, having spent the past four years doing everything they can to sabotage electoral success of their own party, now come back on their high horses demanding we forget about it and vote for 'their' candidate?
So what do you alleged Labour 'supporters' say to the millions of us who got involved with this political party to try and make a fairer country, only to see our democratically elected representative trashed in the media, and backstabbed by every opportunity by a bunch of nasty careerists?
And then you have the audacity to blame us for a Tory government. That really is the definition of political gaslighting at its most contemptible. Well done. Great job. Now we're looking down the barrel of a hard-Brexit and another four years of the most dishonest, venal, and mendacious opportunists in the country's political history.
You’re defending that?
Not defending anything. It’s not a phrase I would use but I am saying we should stop reaching for the anti-semitism smears at every fleeting opportunity. It’s extremely offensive and distressing to be smeared as a racist if you’re not one and it’s not something to use casually.
As for the 30 pieces of silver phrase I get that sensitivities are heightened right now but really, if that is now deemed as racist then that’s about 2 billion Christians who are now on the wrong side of the divide.
It’s extremely offensive and distressing to be smeared as a racist if you’re not one and it’s not something to use casually.
Who have I called a racist?
Should I not question the use of that phrase when used in the context it was?
Does being ‘on the left’ mean you can say anything without being called up on it?
So what do you alleged Labour ‘supporters’ say to the millions of us who got involved with this political party to try and make a fairer country
I wasn’t a Labour supporter, I always considered them to the right of my politics. Corbyn got me voting Labour, my politics are closer to his than there are to even where the Labour Party policy moved with him as leader… I’m in favour of unilateral neucleur disarmament for example. I’m not blind to his failings as leader though, or jumping to defend the mess he seems to want to keep rolling on as regards antisemitism within the party he led to abject failure last year. Change is need in the Labour Party… if it can do so without a lurch to the right, it’ll keep the vote of people like me, and hopefully those lost to others parties or not voting can be brought in as well. It’s clear that some people just want to leave with Corbyn, even if the politics of the party stay on the left. It looks like cultism.
only to see our democratically elected representative trashed in the media
Speaking personally, I don’t have any say in how the media attacks Labour leaders.
who’s legal judgement should we listen to here?
A less than ideal situation no doubt, brought about by the actions of people who were working from the inside to undermine the party, and now that they’ve been exposed are using the opportunity to enrich themselves. That’s the real issue here but you don’t seem too bothered by that.
I think some people need to loosen their tinfoil helmets a bit as they appear to be cutting off your circulation
Jeez, even when he's gone he's still producing negative headlines for Labour. At least Kinnock let himself be forgotten.
I think they now fall under the classification of ‘Enemies of the Revolution’. Until they’ve benefited from ‘re-education’ obviously, comrade.
Did Shami mention anything about whitewashing? I need to do an exterior wall and I hear she’s a dab hand
kelvin
SubscriberWhy did you choose to use the words “took their thirty pieces of silver“? Just echoing what you’ve heard elsewhere? Why that phrase?
OK, I've got to say this is the first time I've ever seen this described as an antisemitic trope. Judas was jewish, sure, but it was as a christian convert and apostle of christ that he betrayed him. But it's also well established culturally as a general description of selling out or betraying someone. Not sure if I've ever used it myself but if I do, it'll be because of that- just like in Crime and Punishment.
If you were using it to complain about a dodgy referee, I probably wouldn’t bat an eyelid… but when talking about whistleblowers about antisemitism… why choose those words…?
For the same reason as you chose it to complain about the dodgy referee?
If you are tone deaf, perhaps.
Does anybody think the Panorama program was balanced? Does anyone think the BBCs coverage of Corbyn and AS was balanced?
Does anybody think the Panorama program was balanced?
No. Definitely not.
Does anyone think the BBCs coverage of Corbyn and AS was balanced?
Much harder to determine.
Balance isn’t always the aim of journalism though.
I'm pretty much the last person to be accused of being tone deaf tbh, I'm a total handwringer.
As you say yourself, it can be used without any connection to religion at all- you wouldn't bat an eyelid if someone says it in another context, about a referee or shouted at Bob Dylan. Context is important of course but if it can be not just innocently used, but in fact completely without any connection to judaism at all, then to presume it in this case just because it is in a discussion of antisemitism, seems like jumping at shadows. Whatever the exact opposite of tone deaf is.
TBF, most times when people get accused of taking 30 pieces of silver or of being a judas, it'll be completely unconnected to religion other than the fact that the person knows it from christianity.
How many people saying these things even thinks of Judas as jewish? (to do so, you need to both know that he was jewish by birth, but also you need to disregard the fact that he had converted to Christianity before the betrayal. And also I suppose you need to disregard that the gospels say he was possessed by the devil. I think to most people being one of the twelve apostles is about as christian as it gets)
And that's not "tone deafness", that's just understanding how the term is generally understood and used, and why it's in the general lexicon.
If the use of language is deeply embedded enough, and in general use, there’s no need to question its use in sensitive situations?
Jeez, even when he’s gone he’s still producing negative headlines for Labour.
like I said, he was happy on his allotment and working in the local food bank. The people who he beat In 2015 just can’t leave it. It’s not enough that he’s gone and they back in control (although possibly with not the wrong leader). They want revenge and they want it at any cost, including it would seem the bankruptcy of the party.
The pay out was to prevent bankrupting the party, and to draw a line under this mess… Corbyn and others no longer at the top of the party just had to keep quiet about it.
You might wish to question its use. Accusing anyone using it of having a "loud dog whistle" then repeatedly jumping on them out in the same way, not so reasonable. You've been pretty aggressive about this, and absolutely dismissive of both Daz and my responses. "no excuses", "tone deaf".
(and big and daft suggesting it should be a banning offence ffs)
I questioned the use of the phrase in the context it was. And I’m being piled on for doing so. Which I find odd to be honest. There is no way I would refer to Judas or pieces of silver when referring to anyone involved in a row over antisemitism, and it find it very odd that anyone would. And also odd that people would defend doing so in the manner you and Dazh have.
Jeez, even when he’s gone he’s still producing negative headlines for Labour.
Corbyn and others no longer at the top of the party just had to keep quiet about it.
Gone? Stay quiet? Fat chance of that. The only time that clown has ever shut up was during the EU referendum, when his extended vow of silence was more than noticeable.
To paraphrase his last speech as Labour leader, wasn’t it along the lines of “I’m never going to go away. I’m way to narcissistic for that. I’m going to carry with my lifelong mission of ensuring the Labour Party is unelectable, as long as I have breath in my body”
Daz... I don’t know how many times you need this spelling out but this entire legal nonsense is the fault of one person only...
Jennie Formby.
A fully paid up member of the Corbynite cabal
She was told by lawyers what would happen if that report was published. She did it anyway. To be now bleating that’s it’s just... like ... SOOOOOOOO NOT FAIR, is frankly embarrassing
You can try and dress it up as a right-wing/Blarite plot, or whatever, but the bottom line is that she is where she is because she’s an idiot. A rain she shares with many of her comrades
All Keir Starmer is doing is trying to not bankrupt the party by spending millions of pounds defending a gang of morons who were given ample warning of what would happen, but went ahead and did it anyway
This slipped past me originally! Popped up on my twitter
For the tone deaf foghorns on here
If I can see the problem with the phrase especially in the context with the Labour party report then it's as glaring as it gets
Doubling down on it makes it worse
STW are in a funny place here, banhamner for inane stuff, anti-Semitic tropes, well it's their forum as they like to remind us.
I bet they are on twitter Monday and Tuesday as well
STW are in a funny place here, banhamner for inane stuff, anti-Semitic tropes, well it’s their forum as they like to remind us.
We’ve dealt with this thanks.
It's not the first time the left/left leaning have been lulled into a false sense of hope, overreached and undermined, then routed with a depressingly predictable fallout!
Similar junctures and different faces that's all.
It’s not the first time the left/left leaning have been lulled into a false sense of hope, overreached and undermined, then routed with a depressingly predictable fallout!
Boris.
She was told by lawyers what would happen if that report was published. She did it anyway. To be now bleating that’s it’s just… like … SOOOOOOOO NOT FAIR, is frankly embarrassing
When was it published?
She was due to leave anyway in September and had Breast cancer treatment for a while so it's hardly a suprise she left earlier.
The idea that the report shows selective quotes is ridiculous when you read them. Quite clearly a toxic culture from the Labour right
You had Ian Austin openly sending letters telling people not to vote Labour. The man is vile.
John Mann who put all is effort attacking Corbyn and jumping on any Labour AS but ignoring Tory AS. Still at it now.
All Keir Starmer is doing is trying to not bankrupt the party by spending millions of pounds defending a gang of morons who were given ample warning of what would happen, but went ahead and did it anyway
Well it's actually the exact opposite of that but carry on.
The idea that the report shows selective quotes is ridiculous when you read them. Quite clearly a toxic culture from the Labour right
Labour’s most senior lawyer under Jeremy Corbyn formally warned the party that an internal report on antisemitism was deliberately misleading and relied upon improperly obtained private correspondence, leaked documents show.
Thomas Gardiner, Labour’s director of governance and legal until last month, wrote that the report should not be circulated because party employees’ emails and WhatsApp messages had been “presented selectively and without their true context in order to give a misleading picture”.
The report, which was leaked to the media, was compiled to be submitted to an inquiry by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) into Labour’s handling of antisemitism complaints.
So, not the Labour right, but the Labour legal team, trying to protect the party from itself...
All you need to know Rone is that "Corbynism" is bad, even though no one can actually define what it is (a clue - it's a nine letter word beginning with S which they had to reconstruct because the policies presented by said nine letter word are so inherently popular with the public, and just enough useful idiots bought it. I've cancelled my membership, but that's exactly what they want isn't it? Such a low point in this country. Desperately need press ownership reform and PR and a decent education system, and until then, nothing is going to really change.
Corbynism” is bad, even though no one can actually define what it is
...or thankfully needs to. But for what it's worth you can look back over this thread and see it's not his policies that were the issue for most of us (exception Brexit, and anyway what's changed policy wise) it was the utterly cack handed execution.
So @fatmountain why have you left? Which party do you see as most likely to bring a fairer more socialist, oh yes, society?
Desperately need press ownership reform
If people bought left wing newspapers then they would be what is printed
Whatever you think about Murdock etc they produce what people will buy, until the left start buying newspapers they will see a press they don't like
I can define what Corbynism is
A set of fairly sound socialist policies with an overall objective of a more equal society completely ****ed up by a useless leader called Corbyn.
When was it published?
It was 'published' the day someone within the labour party (I wonder who?) 'leaked' it to the press.
If you leak something to a national newspaper or put it out on Twitter, or whatever, then, legally, you 'published' it just as much as if you'd have called a press conference for the entire media and handed a copy to every journalist as they walked in. As everyone in the labour party will have been informed by the party's own lawyers
I used to work for the Guardian (boo, hiss!! Bloody right-wing MSM). It was great fun! The journalists would come into the office with all kinds of lurid stories about politicians and celebrities, always told to you with the inevitable refrain 'but obviously we can't publish any of this'
Because if you were a journalist about to start lobbing serious accusations around about people, then you'd be sat down with an editor and a lawyer who would ask a simple question: if we publish this, do you have the evidence to justify it that will stand up in a court of law?
And that's a yes/no answer
If the answer is yes, and you can prove it, go ahead and publish...
If the answer is no, then forget it. It's not being published. It's that simple.
Because to do so would leave the publisher liable for legal actions where the legal fees alone could head into millions.
So if Len McClusky, Jeremy Corbyn and chums are maintaining they would win a legal case, here's a suggestion:
Why don't they put THEIR money where their mouths are. They've got enough of it. If they're so certain this is defensible in a court of law, then defend the legal action with their own money, not the Labour Party's
I'm a party member and there is no way on earth I want my fees being used to defend a legal case resulting from an action taken by Jennie Formby which the labour party's own lawyers clearly told her would result in said legal action if that hatchet job/report found its way into the press, which it duly did.
It's their mess. Let them pay for it! Take some personal responsibility for their actions for a change.
If the labour party settles now, then I believe the cost is about £170,000. If the legal case goes ahead then the legal costs alone will head into the stratosphere and potentially bankrupt the party.
Unsurprisingly, the QC and former DPP believes the best thing to do is draw a line under it, settle out of court, and move on with the labour party not bankrupt
I used to work for the Guardian
BURN HIM!!!!!
Worse than Hitler etc etc
It was ‘published’ the day someone within the labour party (I wonder who?) ‘leaked’ it to the press.
If you leak something to a national newspaper or put it out on Twitter, or whatever, then, legally, you ‘published’ it just as much as if you’d have called a press conference for the entire media and handed a copy to every journalist as they walked in. As everyone in the labour party will have been informed by the party’s own lawyers
Not really. In this case they were sued for defamation for the statement they put out officially ahead of the Panorama programme which lambasted the whistleblowers/journo and made accusations of bad faith. The party can't be on the hook for a leaked document unless it can be demonstrated exactly who distributed it, and that this action was on party leadership orders.
I used to work for the Guardian
Your spelling seems too good for that to be plausible. 🙂
If the labour party settles now, then I believe the cost is about £170,000. If the legal case goes ahead then the legal costs alone will head into the stratosphere and potentially bankrupt the party.
The GDPR breach fines alone could do it, let alone anything else.
The party can’t be on the hook for a leaked document unless it can be demonstrated exactly who distributed it and that this action was on party leadership orders.
Everyone and their uncle knows full-well who leaked it. But, as we've noted already, proving that in court may be another thing. But let's not be under any illusions about who's responsible for all this very, very costly and easily avoidable nonsense, through an act (in ignoring the legal advice) of gross stupidity or spite, or likely both.
It's actually criminally irresponsible when you consider the potential implications for the party ie: complete bankruptcy.
I used to work for the Guardian
Your spelling seems too good for that to be plausible.
I onlee used too drore the piktures 😉
big_n_daft
Member
Desperately need press ownership reformIf people bought left wing newspapers then they would be what is printed
Whatever you think about Murdock etc they produce what people will buy, until the left start buying newspapers they will see a press they don’t like
Propaganda is manipulation of public opinion - public opinion does not manipulate propaganda. Here's an interesting take on it for you (my bold):
All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be.
The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are.
The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan*. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out.
- Adolf Hitler discussing propaganda in Mein Kampf
* sound familiar? Corbynism, Get Brexit Done, Control the Virus etc. It's all the same shit but it appeals to enough people because they are not equipped to deal with it. Interestingly, Finland is investing heavily on 'digital literacy' to try and combat this. I think propaganda now is more complex than it was 70 years ago, but it exploits the same basic premise.
johnx2
Member
Corbynism” is bad, even though no one can actually define what it is…or thankfully needs to. But for what it’s worth you can look back over this thread and see it’s not his policies that were the issue for most of us (exception Brexit, and anyway what’s changed policy wise) it was the utterly cack handed execution.
A significant and influential minority of the party simply refused to accept the overwhelming leadership result, never failing to miss an opportunity to stick the knife in and cause serious division and damage.
Before the revolt we were leading the Tories in polling, and looked in a strong position to win that key election. This was despite the billionaire press and media going into overdrive. At one point, the army said they'd launch a coup against a potential Corbyn-led government. That speaks volumes about our political system. And this is to mention nothing of foreign interference from Israel or Russia, which is of course not allowed to be discussed.
A key difference between the Tories and Labour is that the former will generally fall in line, no matter how imperfect the leadership is. I'd totally accept that the leadership wasn't perfect, and as a matter of fact I thought the campaign message was clunky and out of touch. I thought Corbyn's strengths lay in his principled and evidence-based approach, not necessarily in public speaking. He was a solid campaigner and I actually think he held his nerve amazingly well - few other politicians or public figures would have survived that level of defamation.
I also found Corbyn's position on Brexit vague and I think this did him no favours. But the policy was sound and so I voted for that. I'd be far less bitter if we'd all have had an adult debate about things, but now seeing these foaming-mouthed morons implore me to forget about it is just absolutely infuriating. Blair implores me to get behind Starmer after he publicly stated he'd rather countenance a Tory government. I saw a lot of Labour "supporters" do nothing but sabotage the party over the past few years and now they expect me to forgive and forget. That's really difficult.
So @fatmountain why have you left? Which party do you see as most likely to bring a fairer more socialist, oh yes, society?
I think it finally died sometime last year? So now I just think 'let them eat cake' and maybe it will get so severe that we'll have some sense knocked into us, but the recent election seems to contradict that - like I say, I do not foresee much change in this country so long as the press continues to be owned by 5 billionaires and we do not enact sweeping electoral reforms. I suppose Scotland will go soon, and maybe we'll see a United Ireland. Maybe these are just the death throes that will lead to something better. I've no idea really.
A significant and influential minority of the party simply refused to accept the overwhelming leadership result
There's a huge gulf between being elected as leader, and being able to lead. Corbyn was the former, and as it turned out, terrible at the latter. Most folk I know, and my partner (who is Jewish) voted Labour despite Corbyn not because of him, and trust me when I say I wanted so much more from him than it seem he was capable of being. From your perspective I imagine that you feel Corbyn never had the backing of some of the party, equally from the other side, it felt like Corbyn made no attempt to become a leader that could unite a party, and that he pretty much never tried to.
He's had his time in the sun, and despite winning more votes than our last successful leader, failed to beat first an automaton, and then a man who is both a liar and narcissistic clown. In political terms Corbyn was a failure regardless of how you think he was treated.
^^^ +1 to fatmountain's post.
I kind of hoped that Sir Haircut might actually unite the party as well as be "more electable", but as far as I can see he's just given a pay day to the 2017 wreckers :-\
– Adolf Hitler discussing propaganda in Mein Kampf
Adolf Hitler was a man who could orate, he was, in all other aspects, a drug taking narrow minded simpleton with an overinflated ego and a personality that favoured gambling over reason. Anyone who uses Adolf Hitler to lend credence to their argument has either misunderstood, or hasn't read, their 20thC history or fallen for his propaganda.
Christ! We've gone full Godwin!
Anyway... back to the subject in hand
I kind of hoped that Sir Haircut might actually unite the party as well as be “more electable”
All polling suggests he's accomplished the latter to a huge degree in a very short time-frame, which bodes well for the future. He's made up a 20 point deficit from when grandad strolled away from the smouldering wreckage and his personal polling is higher than Johnsons on every metric, compared to Corbyns worse personal polling of any party leader on record.
Corbyns worse personal polling of any party leader on record.
and regardless of any external reasons that any supporters of Corbyn think mitigates his term as leader, Personal leadership and popularity is the start middle and finish of any party leader in the UK system of government today. You may wish it wasn't, and lord knows, many of us do, but it isn't, and at the very least Stamer seems to get it.
To swing the country socialist AND wanting to exit the EU (Corbyn's & the "left's" position - Tony Benn and Enoch Powell shared the same goal) was breathtaking in its stupidity.
You swing left (socialist) as part of a bigger group, you have allies and friends or at least people that "need" you to function.
You swing left (socialist) and the attacks from the neo-cons and frothing pseudo capitalists start - see Cuba, Venezuela and many murky "incidents" that occurred to left-migrating countries.
Being part of nothing, no one is going to GAS.
Being part of the EU, he, the party and the country could have become a talisman for effective, compassionate popularism - socialism. But no. Apparently the EU wasn't "democratic" and/or the useless **** lacked the political nous to reform it from within.
Being anything more than a consistency MP was WAAAAAY beyond his ability.
Meanwhile looking back in history
https://labourlist.org/2020/07/labours-class-of-45-remembered/
Personal leadership and popularity is the start middle and finish of any party leader in the UK system of government today
Yes, and a lot of us realise that. Corbyn and his team seemed to either not realise that (unlikely) or simply didn't care as Corbyn over stayed his welcome after it was clear that he was not the right person for the job (6 months in if I am being kind)
but as far as I can see he’s just given a pay day to the 2017 wreckers :-\
This is my line in the sand. If Starmer hands out hundreds of thousands of member's fees to these ****s then he's sticking two fingers up to the people like myself who voted for him in the leadership election. Yes, it may cost the party more, but there are much bigger things at stake. The labour movement as a whole would support the party in fighting these turncoats and would raise the money to do it. If Starmer chooses to cave in without a fight then everyone who voted for him will conclude that he's done that because it fits with a right wing political agenda. It will split the party and finish off any chances of a future election victory. The party can either move forward united behind Starmer, or it can spend the next few years fighting internecine battles, it's his choice.
You think the original cases should have gone to court? You’re against the settlement?
If Starmer chooses to cave in without a fight then everyone who voted for him will conclude that he’s done that because it fits with a right wing political agenda. It will split the party and finish off any chances of a future election victory. The party can either move forward united behind Starmer, or it can spend the next few years fighting internecine battles, it’s his choice.
Reading this, it occurs to me that there a perhaps quite a number of Corbyn supporters who might claim they are trying to unite behind him, but never had any intention of doing so, and are simply looking for the first opportunity to declare him a neoliberal sellout and use that as the excuse to enjoy their internecine battles ad infinitum. It's just the reverse side of the never-Corbyn coin, no better, no worse.
It’s just the reverse side of the never-Corbyn coin, no better, no worse.
Definitely not here. There's only two things I (and many others like me) want. The first is to maintain the radical policy position, particularly in relation to the green new deal. Second is to listen to the whole party, not just those who previously opposed Corbyn. The jury's still out on the first and we'll have to wait til later to see, but on the second he's failing miserably. Everything he's done so far, from shadow cabinet, NEC and advisor appointments has signalled the very opposite of his 'unity' promises. Even then many on the left can accept those as long as he can fulfill the first commitment around policy. But now he wants to exonerate and reward those who have been proven to have been working against the party's election chances.
In my experience, people on the left are very forgiving and very open minded, naive even. They're idealists and will fall in behind anyone who offers hope of a real labour government. It's the people on the right who have proven themselves to be the power hungry, self interested, spiteful elements. And now we face seeing those people enriched at the cost of members, and more than likely brought back into party funded jobs. No one on the left is going to accept that. If Starmer wants to avoid blowing apart the party, he needs to find a solution which doesn't allow the likes of McNichol et al to declare victory.
So why do you want the cases to go to court? How will that help? Do you want them to be paid more? Do you want them to be able to point to a successful day in court as a victory? Do you want this to drag on? The best thing to do now, is draw a line under all that, and show the country that the party has moved on, and is now focused on being an alternative government... and like you I want that to include a left wing policy platform. The best chance of that is for the last leadership team to do everything they can to help the party avoid fighting and re-fighting past battles, especially in the courts, and in the media.
Second is to listen to the whole party, not just those who previously opposed Corbyn
The problem wasn't the policies, it was 2 things, 1. the scatter-gun way in which they were presented and easily shot down as more Labour Spending frivolity, and 2. the leadership, and perhaps more importantly the leadership team that were around him. Those people have to be removed (if you don't get that, then you don't get politics). People didn't vote for Labour becasue of the people at the top, those people can no longer be at the top of the party, and it must be made slear to everyone that they are no longer at the top.
Corbyn and those folk had their chance, they blew it...Twice.
Reading this, it occurs to me that there a perhaps quite a number of Corbyn supporters who might claim they are trying to unite behind him, but never had any intention of doing so, and are simply looking for the first opportunity to declare him a neoliberal sellout and use that as the excuse to enjoy their internecine battles ad infinitum
Exactly. They reveled in their totally politically-ineffectual troublemaking and voter-repelling ideological purity for 3 decades through the (annoyingly electorally successful) Blair years, with Corbyn as one of the main instigators. During this period they were tolerated as a bunch of irrelevant oddballs. I suspect that's exactly what we're heading for again
In my experience, people on the left are very forgiving and very open minded
And now we face seeing those people enriched at the cost of members
Are we talking about Seamas here, or Len?
Those people have to be removed (if you don’t get that, then you don’t get politics)
To be clear I'm not talking about Milne, McCluskey et al, I never had any time for them before and much less now. I'm talking about members, MPs and others on the left who put together the policies which everyone (even Binners it appears) seems to agree were the right approach. It's all about that first objective around the policies, but that will never be delivered if everyone from the left is excluded from future involvment. Like it or not the membership voted for Corbyn because he offered an approach which they could identify as labour policies and principles. That sentiment hasn't gone away, and for now many of those people are still behind Starmer, but he's losing them rapidly, and the trickle will become a tide if he is seen to be supporting McNichol et al.
So why do you want the cases to go to court? How will that help?
Not necessarily, I would much rather Starmer find another solution, the key thing is that they can't be seen to be rewarded for their unforgivable behaviour. I'm not saying it's not difficult, clearly it is, but Starmer will be making more trouble for himself if he simply gives in.
I would much rather Starmer find another solution
Suggest one. Otherwise, I would suggest, that there is probably no better qualified person in the Labour movement than the current leader to weigh up the pros and cons of a settlement vs going to court or any other option possible. I'd be listening to him, not Corbyn, on this... why aren't you? What "solution" has Corbyn suggested?
If they go to court, they'll lose.
Simple as that.
Starmer knows this more than anyone and is desperate to avoid, as well as the ludicrous costs, years of news reports starting with the introduction 'Labours Antisemitism Case continues..."
Suggest one.
Well for a start Starmer could unambiguously condemn the actions of the people who are taking the party to court in order to enrich themselves, and condemn the actions they were proven to have taken to undermine labour's election chances. He hasn't done that. Why not? Should that not be a very easy thing for him to do, being the leader of the party which they damaged in the recent past and now seeking to damage again? I'm pretty sure if he did do this, as well as other stuff which could convince those on the left that he's not simply seeking to exonerate them, then he'd acquire a lot more wriggle room with which to come to some sort of settlement which could avoid the courtroom, and avoid a fatally damaging split in the party.
Well for a start Starmer could unambiguously condemn the actions of the people who are taking the party to court in order to enrich themselves
They're taking the party to court for defamation of character by a group within the labour party who illegally broke data protection and privacy laws to put together a hatchet job against them which even their own lawyers told them not to publish, as it was so clearly a hatchet job
The spin you're putting on it is typical lefty, us-v-them, paranoid, bunker-mentality, tinfoil-helmeted fantasy with no basis in reality
Like it or not the membership voted for Corbyn because he offered an approach which they could identify as labour policies and principles
Oh, I absolutely agree with you, Corbyn seemed to represent everything that the Labour party should aspire to. Especially after the fag end of the Blair/Brown era. Turned out that he wasn't a good leader though. That's not anyone's fault, it's just the way it is sometimes. He was in way over his ability. End.
And saying that someone is taking the party to court purely to enrich themselves is precisely the kind of defamatory comment that got the party into this mess in the first instance. The leadership became infected with hyperbolic rhetoric for anyone perceived as disloyal - and explaining away opposition and dissent within a broad political movement as rooted in bad faith and self-serving motives.